On 3/4/2010 12:28 PM, Brett Slatkin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Jay Rossiter <[email protected]> wrote: >> In theory, I agree that it would be nice, but I don't think it's >> practical in most cases. Since WP (as an example) is using a simple >> internal hub, they don't currently have to worry about http polling, or hub >> chaining. For them to support publishing of the proxied URL they need to >> add polling support at the least, and it slows down the 'near realtime' goal >> of PuSH unless the proxy is also doing backwards publish notification. > The proxy would notify the originating hub that the proxied content is > available. The originating hub would fetch the proxied feed and then > deliver to all subscribers. This requires the WP hub to know the > proxied feed is authorized and to be sure to post the source feed and > proxied feeds on different URLs. > > I don't think it would slow anything down, but the dance is probably > more complex than average users are going to want to configure.
That's what I meant by "backwards publish notification" - the hub would be
notifying the publisher (or third party) of updates to its own content. It
would work, but sounds backwards. There would definitely be a lot of overhead
for publishers to implement a scheme like this, and it would require OOB
configuration on the proxy-service's side as well.
--
Jay Rossiter | Software Engineer/System Administrator
Pioneering RSS Advertising Solutions
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | Phone: 503.896.6187 |
Fax: 503.235.2216
Website: www.pheedo.com <http://www.pheedo.com/> | RSS:
www.pheedo.info/index.xml <http://www.pheedo.info/index.xml>
<<inline: pheedo.gif>>
